Better reasons to quit Christianity

[The Grand Nudger]

The catholic concept of purgatory seems logical to you because you feel that people should have a second chance? I think what you mean to say is that the catholic concept of purgatory fulfills a wishful longing you have about the status of our (after)lives and our ability to "do it over" when we screw up. Maybe I'm wrong though, perhaps you could explain to me where the reason resides in stories of afterlives and purgatory?

The word you keep using, imagining that it qualifies a statement so that it is no longer troubling, is "inherent". It doesn't. It doesn't matter if omniscience is inherent or acquired, this does not have an effect on the troubling aspects of the concept. It does not matter what an omniscient being chooses not to know, as the problem is -what can be known-.

I'm not sure why there's so much resistance on this single, simple little point. We are looking to eliminate the impossible.......right?

[spockrates]

If the Old and New Testament accounts are true, I think they teach us God did what he did not make Abraham go through with. He sacrificed his own Son.

That doesn't actually do anything to make the story any better. As you say, 'if' the stories are true - and let's for the moment accept that they are and are accounts of actual historical events - then God is an even bigger bastard than I made it out to be. Matt Dillahunty's analogy of God as Mafia Boss doesn't cover it. If I told you to kill a loved one and you said "sure, no problem", you would merely be a fool. I would be a psychotic criminal. The 'fact' that this god then said "no, I was only testing you" and stopped the killing from taking place is not and can not be a defense.

As for God sacrificing his own son, then Judas' betrayal and the Jews' denial were all part of what was meant to happen. Incidentally, the choice of the name "Judas" is no coincidence. The early church leaders realised that, whatever else happened, they would still have to live under Roman rule; the very last thing they needed was to piss them off. So they had to find a way to change the killers of 'the Christ' from the Roman authorities to the Jewish people. Hence the betrayal of 'Judas' and all that follows in the story.

I hear what you are saying. I don't believe I'd agree to sacrifice my son, even if I (like Abraham) was promised by God that my son would become the ancestor of a great nation of Jewish people. Even though I thought (as the New Testament author suggests Abraham thought) that God would raise him from the dead. I don't think I could play the part of Abraham's son (who was no child at the time) and allow my father to sacrifice me.

[spockrates]

The word you keep using, imagining that it qualifies a statement so that it is no longer troubling, is "inherent". It doesn't. It doesn't matter if omniscience is inherent or acquired, this does not have an effect on the troubling aspects of the concept. It does not matter what an omniscient being chooses not to know, as the problem is -what can be known-.

I'm not sure why there's so much resistance on this single, simple little point. We are looking to eliminate the impossible.......right?

It seems you have not read what I've said about the difference between inherent and total omniscience, or you don't care to read it, or you don't understand.

OK, please let me ask you this: According to your understanding of omniscience, would you say there is nothing that is impossible for God to know?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Yes, I agree there that many deserve a second chance--even after death. One reason why the Catholic concept of Purgatory seems logical to me.

I think that kind of misses the point; a loving and compassionate God would not condemn anyone to eternal suffering ,period.


As it turns out,an eternal hell is a Christian invention which does not exist in Judaism. The Jewish concept of hell is exactly like the Christian notion of purgatory;EVERYONE eventually gets out.

[Cato]

It seems you have not read what I've said about the difference between inherent and total omniscience, or you don't care to read it, or you don't understand.

OK, please let me ask you this: According to your understanding of omniscience, would you say there is nothing that is impossible for God to know?

I have read what you said. My problem is that you are endeavoring to redefine words; namely, onmiscience. Omniscience means 'to know everything'. If one knows everything, then the qualifiers 'inherent' and 'total' mean absolutely nothing...nothing.

You cannot provide one shred of evidence for the existence of your god, yet you want to burden this fictional character with omniscience. Epicurus laid waste to the omni-bullshit over two centuries before your christ was supposed to have walked through an ingnorant portion of the world. What fucking excuse do you have as an adult human being in the 21st century to believe this tripe?

If you wish to believe it, fine. Go wallow in your ignorance, but have the common decency not to defend this idiocy amongst your temporal human peers.

[The Grand Nudger]

It seems you have not read what I've said about the difference between inherent and total omniscience, or you don't care to read it, or you don't understand.

OK, please let me ask you this: According to your understanding of omniscience, would you say there is nothing that is impossible for God to know?

It's more likely I dismissed your post as word salad...isn't it Spock? Omniscience is a very difficult word to misinterpret or misuse...you actually have to put effort into it. Inherent omniscience is total, by definition. Inherent doesn't have the ability to qualify the attribute, only the thing that possesses it. Nevertheless, whether this entity's omniscience is inherent doesn't affect our predestined existence a single bit. The particulars of this omniscience, the manner in which it is engaged in, what this entity chooses to know or not now, even whether or not any entity possesses it...none of this solves the problem.

The problem lies in whether or not it is possible to have knowledge of the future Spock. If not, this god is off the hook for torturing ants, but on the hook for gambling with the same. Essentially one simply needs to decide what kind of asshole they feel comfortable bowing to.

[spockrates]

It seems you have not read what I've said about the difference between inherent and total omniscience, or you don't care to read it, or you don't understand.

OK, please let me ask you this: According to your understanding of omniscience, would you say there is nothing that is impossible for God to know?

I have read what you said. My problem is that you are endeavoring to redefine words; namely, onmiscience. Omniscience means 'to know everything'. If one knows everything, then the qualifiers 'inherent' and 'total' mean absolutely nothing...nothing.

Hi, Cato. Good to know you're still around! The Latin omni means all. Do you see any difference between having the ability to know all and actually knowing all?

You cannot provide one shred of evidence for the existence of your god, yet you want to burden this fictional character with omniscience. Epicurus laid waste to the omni-bullshit over two centuries before your christ was supposed to have walked through an ingnorant portion of the world. What fucking excuse do you have as an adult human being in the 21st century to believe this tripe?

If you wish to believe it, fine. Go wallow in your ignorance, but have the common decency not to defend this idiocy amongst your temporal human peers.

Yes, as Socrates said, "A wise man is not likely to talk nonsense. Let us consider what he has to say." (Theaetetus 152).

So let us carefully consider what Epicurus had to say and not just accept it on blind faith. After all, we won't know there is no evidence against his ideas if we don't question them. According to Epicurus' understanding of omniscience, would you say there is nothing (absolutely nothing) that is impossible for God (if God exists) to know?

---

It seems you have not read what I've said about the difference between inherent and total omniscience, or you don't care to read it, or you don't understand.

OK, please let me ask you this: According to your understanding of omniscience, would you say there is nothing that is impossible for God to know?

It's more likely I dismissed your post as word salad...isn't it Spock? Omniscience is a very difficult word to misinterpret or misuse...you actually have to put effort into it. Inherent omniscience is total, by definition. Inherent doesn't have the ability to qualify the attribute, only the thing that possesses it. Nevertheless, whether this entity's omniscience is inherent doesn't affect our predestined existence a single bit. The particulars of this omniscience, the manner in which it is engaged in, what this entity chooses to know or not now, even whether or not any entity possesses it...none of this solves the problem.

The problem lies in whether or not it is possible to have knowledge of the future Spock. If not, this god is off the hook for torturing ants, but on the hook for gambling with the same. Essentially one simply needs to decide what kind of asshole they feel comfortable bowing to.

Hmmm. I thought the problem lies in whether or not it is possible to limit one's knowledge of the future. But perhaps you missed the question? (It's that delicious looking cherry tomato on top. You should try it. You might find you like it!)

According to your understanding of omniscience, would you say there is nothing that is impossible for God (if God exists) to know?

[spockrates]

Yes, I agree there that many deserve a second chance--even after death. One reason why the Catholic concept of Purgatory seems logical to me.

I think that kind of misses the point; a loving and compassionate God would not condemn anyone to eternal suffering ,period
.

As it turns out,an eternal hell is a Christian invention which does not exist in Judaism. The Jewish concept of hell is exactly like the Christian notion of purgatory;EVERYONE eventually gets out.

Well, there is a great deal of disagreement among Jewish people regarding life after death. Those who practice Conservative Judaism generally do not believe there is any life after this one.

Those who practice Refomed Judaism sometimes believe the same, but many believe in various ideas of Eastern mysticism in which souls merge into some kind of impersonal force after death.

Those who practice Orthodox Judaism believe there will be a physical resurrection. The righteous will live forever with God in what they call the "World to Come." The unrighteous will suffer, but there is a good deal of disagreement among them over their ultimate destiny. Many consider the quotation of the Isaiah verses describing a place or state of existence "where their worm does not die" to mean suffering for the unrighteous in Gehinnom will be forever.

But if you are interested, I'd like to consider with you why it is impossible for a loving God to allow anyone to suffer hell. Would you be interested in answering a few questions for me?

---

Mister Agenda:

The question we are currently considering is open to all. It's a simple question to answer--a yes, or no will do: Do you think there is nothing that is impossible for an omniscient God to know?

[spockrates]

I have to admit that I find it fascinating, guys. Your zeal to defend your faith in what God is rivals that of the most partisan, diehard fundamentalist, Calvinist, Carholic, or Evangelical!

I thought that when I came to this forum, people would say, "Well, I personally don't believe in God, so I don't have any beliefs about him, but tell me what YOU think God is, and I'll be glad to discuss your own beliefs with you."

As it is, I'm getting a dogmatic correction of my beliefs, as if I'm being asked to convert to the true faith of what God is before I reject him! I'll say it again: Fascinating.

[KichigaiNeko]

Such is the exploration of the self young Spock. this "god" is what YOU want him/shim to be.